Search

Subscribe

About

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m especially interested in the law regarding electronic communications and electronic evidence. (For one thing, it allows me to look at web sites like Gizmodo and claim that I’m working.) I’ve previously published a paper on law enforcement use of GPS tracking devices, as well as several blog posts about electronic evidence.

My latest foray into the field is this Administration of Justice Bulletin, entitled Prosecution and Law Enforcement Access to Information about Electronic Communications. It’s a primer about everything from phone records to email to wiretapping, and it’s meant to be useful to prosecutors, officers, defense attorneys, and judges. The law in this area is incredibly complicated, and my sense is that there’s a need for a basic resource. I plan to update the bulletin from time to time, so your feedback would be much appreciated.

I’m also planning to write a blog post about the flip side of the coin: defense access to information about electronic communications. Look for that in the next week or two. Finally, my colleague Kara Millonzi has recently published this paper on electronic discovery in civil cases. It’s of particular relevance to folks involved in quasi-criminal cases, like post-conviction litigation, but it has some nuggets that might be of interest to “regular” criminal lawyers, too.

One comment on “New Publication on Electronic Search and Seizure”

raumeen

November 6, 2009 at 2:11 pm

like you said in the above case laws a gps tracking device is not a search when attached to a car without having to open any containers on the car, so having said that what would you say about a car parked in a driveway would you have to get a warrent to install or not?

before anyone anwsers i remember a case where a drug dealer left a bag of marijuana in his trash can outside to be picked up by a friend that he did not know was an informant, but the trash can was at the end of his driveway, that was in plain view from th road, the officers seized the marijuana and it was later suppressed because a warrent was not issued.